stevey_frac wrote:It was intended to be a retaliation to the threats made on peoples lives that said 'Don't draw the prophet Mohammad'. It was a very emphatic way of responding to that statement with 'No'.

IMHO, some people took it, and launched an anti-muslim statement in a 'na na na boo boo' kinda way, ignoring the solemnity with which it was intended.

I'm not sure I would call this a "solemn" thing. I won't bother with the dictionary definition, because that's silly, but I'd say that this was intended to be a nose-thumbing moment. I mean honestly, random extremist number one goes, "DEATH TO ALL INFIDELS WHO DEPICT THE PROPHET MUHAMMED!" the rest of the world looks askance at this obviously excitable person and goes, "Ok, now that everyone but you has drawn a picture of the prophet Muhammed, whatcha gonna do?"

At this point, the extremist either puts up or shuts up, or more likely continues ranting in the corner. I wouldn't say that kind of an action is solemn, more light-hearted than anything.

- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:

Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

t almost sounds like the makings of a joke - an atheist, a muslim and the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. But non-believers aren't laughing about an attack and insist what's really frightening is the way a midstate judge ruled on it.

The atheists of Central Pennsylvania decided to walk in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. There was a zombie Pope, and a zombie Muhammed.

And on YouTube you can catch a scary moment. It's dark and distorted, but a Muslim man comes off the curb extremely offended at Muhammed being depicted in this way.

"He grabbed me, choked me from the back, and spun me around to try to get my sign off that was wrapped around my neck," said Ernie Perce, who donned the costume.

The Muslim man and Pierce both called police to report a crime. Both kept walking, and a few blocks down found Sgt. Brian Curtis. He talked to both and came to this conclusion.

"Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in confronting him," he said.

Talaag Elbayomy was charged with harrassment. But District Judge Mark Martin threw it out after criticizing Perce, the victim, and even calling him a doofus. The audio is also on YouTube.

Martin, who has done several tours of duty in the Middle East, said Perce would be put to death in those societies for his crime. But Perce wonders why that's relevant in this country.

"He let a man who is Muslim, because of his preference of his culture and his way of life, walk free from an attack," Perce said.

R. Mark Thomas represented Elbayomy and applauds the judge.

"I think this was was a good dressing down by the judge," he said. "The so-called victim was the antagonist and we introduced evidence that clearly showed his attitude toward Muslims. The judge didn't do anything I wouldn't have done if I was in that position."

Though Elbayomy denied touching Perce at trial, Sgt. Curtis says he admitted grabbing Perce's sign and beard the night of the incident.

Talaag Elbayomy said he was at the parade with his wife and two kids and felt he just had to do something. In fact, he too called the police because he thought it was a crime for someone to depict Muhammed in such a way. He has since learned otherwise.

tl;dr: Dude dress up like Mohammad for Halloween, gets physically harassed by a Muslim, presses charges and losses case because: "[The Mohammad impersonator] would be put to death in those societies [The Middle East] for his crime.

I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.

Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

I don't really see how you can justify that legally, except maybe with aliberal application of "fighting words" or something. Even then, that's no reason to let the assailant walk away totally scot-free.

That is ridiculous, but I'm not sure I would say it's a "frightening" ruling. I don't think the US judicary is in much danger of overly pandering to Muslims. I imagine this judge is a bit of a one off.

It seems odd there was no quotes from the judge though. Presumably the reporter wasn't in court for the trial and has been relayed the story second-hand. It's possible the reason it was thrown out was because there was no evidence an assault took place; the article says Elbayomy denied touching Perce. The comment about being put to death in those societies for his crime, however misguided, may have been a bit of a throwaway rather than the main factor in his ruling.

Also, that article was really badly written. There was a number of sections I had to re-read two or three times to take in what he was saying. Some bits I'm still not sure exactly what he was getting at. And if you are going to mention YouTube videos in an article, would a link or two hurt?

Yo Rodja's kind of a dick, those are the facts / He murdered a pawnbroker with an axeNow Dosoyevsky is here to teach you / About his problems with the philosophy of Nietzsche

I'm also quite confused because there are no other articles at all on the web if I google the guy's name, except another article over here. Though I guess, given a video and stuff, there's enough to say that it happened.

I obviously think that attacker was totally out of bounds and needs to at least be given some sort of explanation that you can't just assault people on the streets. I do think that, in this case, some blame lies in the costume-wearers. Apparently this was a group of atheists that decided to mock other religions' dead gods/characters in a 'free speech' statement... on the streets. I'm not saying he deserved an attack, but seriously, that's the sort of thing that you probably don't want to do. Nothing to do about faith, but about respecting other people. I hate it when people interpret "freedom of speech" to mean "I can say whatever I want and you can't be upset about it."

Steax wrote:I hate it when people interpret "freedom of speech" to mean "I can say whatever I want and you can't be upset about it."

Sure, but, "I can say whatever I want and you can't assault me for it," seems a perfectly reasonable interpretation.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

I found a few other places reporting the story, most of them blogs or Facebook posts. Examiner.com has audio apparently from the trial. (I'm at work so haven't listened to it.) I don't know the site, but since the author of the piece is described as an "Atheism Examiner", I imagine there is some bias there. A post by American Atheists on Facebook says Judge Martin is "an avowed Muslim". Again, whether this is true or not, I'm unsure.

Yo Rodja's kind of a dick, those are the facts / He murdered a pawnbroker with an axeNow Dosoyevsky is here to teach you / About his problems with the philosophy of Nietzsche

Steax wrote:I obviously think that attacker was totally out of bounds and needs to at least be given some sort of explanation that you can't just assault people on the streets. I do think that, in this case, some blame lies in the costume-wearers. Apparently this was a group of atheists that decided to mock other religions' dead gods/characters in a 'free speech' statement... on the streets. I'm not saying he deserved an attack, but seriously, that's the sort of thing that you probably don't want to do. Nothing to do about faith, but about respecting other people. I hate it when people interpret "freedom of speech" to mean "I can say whatever I want and you can't be upset about it."

But yeah, still, that assault was completely unnecessary.

Let's say someone(trigger)

Spoiler:

raped one of the female slut walk participants.

I could easily modify your text to apply to that situation. Yet it would seem like a VERY douchey thing for you to say. I'm going to say that your current, unmodified text is also douchey.

Sure, you said that attacker was out of line, but you're still victim blaming.

Can't this get appealed, or no?

The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

You can't... just take people's posts in a different context, say they're wrong there, and say they're wrong in the first context.

I'm not saying the victim is the one at fault here. The person who made an action which needs to be reprimanded is clearly the attacker. However, I'd also note that it's unwise to go around poking into other people's beliefs, if only for the social aspect of not getting people to dislike you. I am not saying that the costume-wearer is entirely to blame for his attack, but I am saying that avoiding topics sensitive to others may be a good idea.

Steax wrote:You can't... just take people's posts in a different context, say they're wrong there, and say they're wrong in the first context.

I'm not saying the victim is the one at fault here. The person who made an action which needs to be reprimanded is clearly the attacker. However, I'd also note that it's unwise to go around poking into other people's beliefs, if only for the social aspect of not getting people to dislike you. I am not saying that the costume-wearer is entirely to blame for his attack, but I am saying that avoiding topics sensitive to others may be a good idea.

Well, sure, if you don't want to offend people, don't do things that you know will offend people. In general, you DON'T want to offend people, so in general, it IS a good idea to avoid stuff like that.

But if you're okay with offending people, than that's fine. PETA does a lot of offensive stuff, just by the name of "slut walk" you know they're okay with offending people, the flying spaghetti monster parody is also offensive to a lot of people. Does that mean that the FSM thing is a bad idea? Does that mean slut walk is a bad idea? Not necessarily. Similarly, depicting Mohammad can offend people. Is it necessarily a bad idea? No.

The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Xeio wrote:That would be the issue. That is what we call victim blaming.

Okay, here we go. (In retrospect, this seems to be.. an apt place for this.)

Lets say a guy rides a bike through a neighborhood where everyone loves person X. Said guy shouts everywhere saying that X sucks - not necessarily offensive, but certainly attention-grabbing. Suddenly the guy gets hit by an arrow. Cops come in, arrest the shooter, and tell the guy riding the bike, "hey, it's probably a good idea not to say that kind of thing around here, people don't really like it."

Is that still victim blaming?

Роберт wrote:Well, sure, if you don't want to offend people, don't do things that you know will offend people. In general, you DON'T want to offend people, so in general, it IS a good idea to avoid stuff like that.

But if you're okay with offending people, than that's fine. PETA does a lot of offensive stuff, just by the name of "slut walk" you know they're okay with offending people, the flying spaghetti monster parody is also offensive to a lot of people. Does that mean that the FSM thing is a bad idea? Does that mean slut walk is a bad idea? Not necessarily. Similarly, depicting Mohammad can offend people. Is it necessarily a bad idea? No.

Oh, sure, that's fine. If someone wants to go around offending people, that's fine. I'm saying that, assuming these people are indeed parading in the name of free speech and generally want to convey positive messages of fun and happiness (it's a costume parade), then they'd probably best avoid things people are sensitive to.

Xeio wrote:That would be the issue. That is what we call victim blaming.

Okay, here we go. (In retrospect, this seems to be.. an apt place for this.)

Lets say a guy rides a bike through a neighborhood where everyone loves person X. Said guy shouts everywhere saying that X sucks - not necessarily offensive, but certainly attention-grabbing. Suddenly the guy gets hit by an arrow. Cops come in, arrest the shooter, and tell the guy riding the bike, "hey, it's probably a good idea not to say that kind of thing around here, people don't really like it."

Is that still victim blaming?

Yes. Exactly in the same way it is victim blaming to tell a rape victim she was "asking for it" by wearing revealing clothing. People have the right to behave in ways that are offensive or anti-social. If someone is behaving offensively or antisocially, you have the right to call them out on it, or to be offensive or antisocial back to them. But you don't get the right to be violent, regardless of what they are doing.

LaserGuy wrote:Yes. Exactly in the same way it is victim blaming to tell a rape victim she was "asking for it" by wearing revealing clothing. People have the right to behave in ways that are offensive or anti-social. If someone is behaving offensively or antisocially, you have the right to call them out on it, or to be offensive or antisocial back to them. But you don't get the right to be violent, regardless of what they are doing.

I'm not going to argue further on victim-blaming, because I seriously apologize if I appeared to be blaming the victim (as in, saying it was their fault) for what happened. Yes, he has every right to do what he did. He did not do something wrong (cue morality debate which I will totally run away from). He did not deserve to be assaulted. I am stating that, given what he was doing - a costume parade, promoting freedom of speech and as part of an atheist group on the streets - it would be counterproductive to poke at other people's beliefs.

Aside from the 'victim blaming' thing though, the question gets to whether we should accept chilling language when it come to portrayal of something 'offensive'. Should we accept that, as it may be in this case, a legally justifiable consequence of an offensive portrayal of some person is assault and battery?

Should rampaging mobs of evangelicals be allowed to be at the crap out of the participants in a Gay Pride parade because they're offended by the homosexual lifestyle? Should we let those evangelicals off the hook because they were 'culturally and/or religiously offended' by the parade participants (and possibly leaving the parade participants with the legal bill for the trial depending on the jurisdiction)?

I'd be open to the argument that it would be one thing if this atheist parade were staged in a country that enshrined a strict interpretation of Islam in their laws and by being in that country they should expect local laws to be enforced, but in the U.S. the expectation of someone who's being offensive is that being offensive in-and-of-itself doesn't give someone offended the right to violate their bodily autonomy. In the U.S. we don't get to beat the crap out of douchebags strictly because they're douchebags, and as that is the law here someone being a douchebag should expect that law to be enforced.

Regardless whether he would have been executed in another country or culture the event happened in the U.S. and it should have been judged based on U.S. law, not because of how it may ave played out elsewhere.

Whether it's productive to the debate about religion (in specific or in general) is (IMO) a different issue. The judge handed down a ruling inconsistent with U.S. law because of how it would have played out in another country.

We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Steax wrote:Oh, sure, that's fine. If someone wants to go around offending people, that's fine. I'm saying that, assuming these people are indeed parading in the name of free speech and generally want to convey positive messages of fun and happiness (it's a costume parade), then they'd probably best avoid things people are sensitive to.

That's sort of missing the point of free speech. Nobody has to protect our rights to say things other people agree with. What we need to protect is our right to say things other people disagree with, even vehemently disagree with. If you can't say things that other people disagree with, you don't have free speech, plain and simple.

And what you're talking about is the heckler'sveto and giving into it is the opposite of free speech, since each time you give into it, it encourages more hecklers.

I'm not saying they absolutely can't, lest be hit by falling cacti from the heavens. I'm saying that you typically don't want to offend people when you're campaigning for something. So it may be beneficial to your cause when you're trying to gain sympathizers and support.

(I'm not looking at this from the 'free speech vs angry religious people' point of view. I'm looking at it from the 'so you guys have a point, here's a good idea how to make it work well in your campaign' point of view.)

Steax wrote:I'm not saying they absolutely can't, lest be hit by falling cacti from the heavens. I'm saying that you typically don't want to offend people when you're campaigning for something. So it may be beneficial to your cause when you're trying to gain sympathizers and support.

(I'm not looking at this from the 'free speech vs angry religious people' point of view. I'm looking at it from the 'so you guys have a point, here's a good idea how to make it work well in your campaign' point of view.)

Great. I'm sure the atheist group in question will welcome your suggestions on how best to achieve your interpretation of what their campaign is.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

Dauric wrote:Regardless whether he would have been executed in another country or culture the event happened in the U.S. and it should have been judged based on U.S. law, not because of how it may ave played out elsewhere.

Whether it's productive to the debate about religion (in specific or in general) is (IMO) a different issue. The judge handed down a ruling inconsistent with U.S. law because of how it would have played out in another country.

Yeah, I really don't understand this at all. I mean, there's nothing wrong in principle with looking at other jurisdictions for legal precedents, but it normally only makes sense when the country you are looking to has a rather similar legal system to yours in the first place, and when there aren't really any good precedents in your jurisdiction to call upon. It's not like there haven't been numerous cases of this nature in the United States before.

Steax wrote:I'm not saying they absolutely can't, lest be hit by falling cacti from the heavens. I'm saying that you typically don't want to offend people when you're campaigning for something. So it may be beneficial to your cause when you're trying to gain sympathizers and support.

I think part of their point was to make fun of the veneration of religious figures.

The funny part was that early Muslims drew Muhammed all the time. I can still find images of him in museums.

Considering freedom of speech, I think I have the right to mock Islam as much as I please, or draw Muhammed, if that be the case. If people are allowed to mock Christianity whenever they feel like it, I see no reason that I can't portray Muhammed as ridiculously as people portray Jesus... or Buddha, or Shiva, or etc.

When you do it to a minority, you're a gross bigot. When you do it to a majority, it's okay.

That's not the funny part. The funny part is that a few bastards get more upset by more upset by a few cartoonists drawing their prophet than they ever did from a few anti-theists mocking their deity; these people believe that Mohamed is more sacred than god.

CorruptUser wrote:That's not the funny part. The funny part is that a few bastards get more upset by more upset by a few cartoonists drawing their prophet than they ever did from a few anti-theists mocking their deity; these people believe that Mohamed is more sacred than god.

Which happens to be why most muslims consider these lunatics to be just that.

CorruptUser wrote:That's not the funny part. The funny part is that a few bastards get more upset by more upset by a few cartoonists drawing their prophet than they ever did from a few anti-theists mocking their deity; these people believe that Mohamed is more sacred than god.

That's hardly unique to Muslims. Most Christians seem to get more upset by insults to Jesus than insults to god.

I don't think that's strange either. God is a much more abstract concept. Jesus and Mohammed are people, with whom believers have a very personal relationship

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Saw former RNC Uncle Tom *cough* chairman*cough* Michael Steele in msnbc debating random obama guy. Steele said "You can't criticize my faith. Those are my strong held beliefs, and you can't do that." And stupid liberal guy kowtowed to him, trying to say he wasn't criticizing beliefs, just wondering about their impact on policy.

It irked me. YOUR BELIEFS ARE FUCKING STUPID. I'M NOT REQUIRED TO RESPECT THEM, LET ALONE DIGNIFY THEM. Fuck your faith -- I hate how everyone has to regard others' faiths with sensitivity. Fuck that. If your faith is harming me, I will work for the day when I or my descendants get to dance on its grave. Your superstition might be sacred to you, but I shouldn't be forced to recognize it as sacred.

If I can make fun of scientology -- or alongside Abrahamic religions sneer at neo-paganism-- and dismiss ancient Greek religion as mythology, I can call your popular but equally asinine abrahamic stories a mythology unworthy of shaping MY life and finances.

Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Lucrece wrote:It irked me. YOUR BELIEFS ARE FUCKING STUPID. I'M NOT REQUIRED TO RESPECT THEM, LET ALONE DIGNIFY THEM. Fuck your faith -- I hate how everyone has to regard others' faiths with sensitivity. Fuck that. If your faith is harming me, I will work for the day when I or my descendants get to dance on its grave. Your superstition might be sacred to you, but I shouldn't be forced to recognize it as sacred.

If I can make fun of scientology -- or alongside Abrahamic religions sneer at neo-paganism-- and dismiss ancient Greek religion as mythology, I can call your popular but equally asinine abrahamic stories a mythology unworthy of shaping MY life and finances.

This reminded me of a colleague of mine who declared yesterday that for Lent he would be giving up religious tolerance

I had an argument on the subject of cartoonists depicting Mohammad on another, less enlightened forum years ago. I said that if I belonged to a religion that worshiped circles as holy shapes and forbade me from drawing circles, that wouldn't give me any justification to be offended when non-adherents of my faith drew circles. I was angrily told that I was being ridiculous and facetious and that this is totally different

Lucrece wrote:If I can make fun of scientology -- or alongside Abrahamic religions sneer at neo-paganism-- and dismiss ancient Greek religion as mythology, I can call your popular but equally asinine abrahamic stories a mythology unworthy of shaping MY life and finances.

Yes. And they can break your stuff. Gosh golly, maybe they don't respect your veneration of unguarded property any more than you respect their allegiance to the dictates of their prophet. I'm not a fan of the response, but privileged Western folks can go a long way by recognizing that they threw the first punch and that it was a punch.

Lucrece wrote:If I can make fun of scientology -- or alongside Abrahamic religions sneer at neo-paganism-- and dismiss ancient Greek religion as mythology, I can call your popular but equally asinine abrahamic stories a mythology unworthy of shaping MY life and finances.

Yes. And they can break your stuff. Gosh golly, maybe they don't respect your veneration of unguarded property any more than you respect their allegiance to the dictates of their prophet.

Nope! You see, that's against the law, whether they respect my unguarded property or not. Funny how that works.

Diadem wrote:That's hardly unique to Muslims. Most Christians seem to get more upset by insults to Jesus than insults to god.

I don't think that's strange either. God is a much more abstract concept. Jesus and Mohammed are people, with whom believers have a very personal relationship

I'm not an expert an theology, but don't most christians consider jesus to be the same as their god?

No, Jesus is not the same as god. Jesus is god's son (just pretend god is a normal man who is like, really freaking powerful), Jesus was human. Supposedly did some inhuman things, or he did some human things and god created miracles to make it look like Jesus did them, not sure. He was also like a really nice guy that taught other people to be nice. Insulting god should be irrelevant, he's a god for god's sake, what does he care? Insulting Jesus may be worse because he was just a really cool dude who was really nice, that'd be like spreading rumors around about that dude that brings in free milk and cookies to work everyday.

Technically, it depends on which sect of Christianity. Catholicism and most of Christianity it literally belief that Jesus is the son of God and God at the same time(along with the Holy Spirit) in what is known as the Trinity. There are a few sects that don't though, the Church of Latter Day Saints(Mormons), Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses and the United Church of God all don't believe in the Trinity.